Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: DariusBane; metmom; boatbums; caww; presently no screen name; smvoice; MamaB; dartuser; wesagain; ..
The reality is that these commands if these commands are to be implemented they must be interpreted.

I provided the basis for interpretation which maintains distinction and upholds modesty based on what is clear, without engaging in legalism or dismissing such as cultural.

Like it or not, the interpreters are men attempting to apprehend God. Men almost always get it wrong.

In-credible! Your response confirms that you operate under the same manner of hermeneutic sophistry of prohomosexual apologists, which dismiss the clear injunctions against homosexual relations under the premise that these are interpreted (or even written) by homophobic writers! And or they they were cultural and thus not applicable to their domesticated sodomy. And which, applied in principle elsewhere, enables one to abrogate most any moral command.

Of course the interpreters are men, as that is who God chose to pen Scripture and to occupy the formal church office of teacher in authority over men and women. That is what Scripture teaches, with malr leadership being the norm, and which i thus uphold (even if personally i am more a servant than a leader myself, and look to help, not rule.). Most likely you oppose that and subscribe to the sophistry of "egalitarianism," which i have dealt with much. And which is overall anti authoritarian, and engages in argumentation that in effect ultimately renders Scripture so open to interpretation that it has no authority. The devil's plan B.

145 posted on 11/14/2013 11:21:28 AM PST by daniel1212 (Come to the Lord Jesus as a contrite damned+destitute sinner, trust Him to save you, then live 4 Him)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies ]


To: daniel1212

Oh dear.

We are not going to agree on this. The pro-Homosexual arguments are bucking a tremendous amount of direct language in the Bible.

The interpretation of what is modest... Not so much.

My only purpose for posting on this thread is to save daughters everywhere from being forced into denim skirts, doilies on their poor little heads and the wearing of ankle length skorz while playing basketball. Aesthetics demand I at least try!


148 posted on 11/14/2013 11:56:17 AM PST by DariusBane (Liberty and Risk. Flip sides of the same coin. So how much risk will YOU accept?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies ]

To: daniel1212
Pual does mention a woman Deacon in Romans ch 16 v 1. Phoebe does seem to be much more involved in the actual ministry than Priscilla and Aquila whom in the next couple of verse Paul calls co-workers in his ministry. In general I think men should be the pastor in the church. In smaller churches especially some women have the best ability {Gift} to be music director. However I would not totally exclude women from the ministry even as far as preaching The Gospel especially as Evangelist or missionaries nor for that matter women's who fruits of their labor in their ministry have been GOD called to such.

Case in point Joni Ericson Tada's ministry to the disabled. A very remarkable spirit filled woman who minister to those who have suffered suffered severe disability.

As for attire for church? A person can make a case either way. Who should churches be ministering too? Christ ministered to those the leaders of the Temples and others called outcast because of their economic or health situation.

While I can see it being disrespectfull to walk in every Sunday looking like a drag queen, street walker, cross dresser, Butch, etc I see no disrespect in coming to church in your everyday clothing as long as it isn't a distraction. I have no issue with a woman wearing slacks to church. I have no issue with men who don't wear a suit and tie. Personally I'd wear clean coveralls & my work boots if I wore anything.

I respect The House of The Lord. I also respected, loved, and honored my dad till his last breath on earth. As much love and respect I had I wore coveralls to his funeral and boots. Shoes for me cost in excess of $100 and my prescription insoles have to be inside them. I own one pair of shoes and for ankle support I only wear what most persons call work boots. The old lace ups. I can not tolerate anything near my neck. I either wear bib overalls with a shirt unbuttoned two buttons down or a light pair of coveralls.

My wife? Every place we go she wears sweat pants and a tee shirt. She still looks very much a woman. I'd be the one beside her with a full beard and hair down to my shoulders. She's cute I'm not LOL. Necessity dictates what she can wear.

Our preacher wanted women to wear dresses. For that reason my wife never felt comfortable again in the church although he did understand necessity because she was wearing a night gown when he married us.

The Lord doesn't focus on our outside. His focus is on our hearts inside.

167 posted on 11/14/2013 5:17:38 PM PST by cva66snipe (Two Choices left for U.S. One Nation Under GOD or One Nation Under Judgment? Which one say ye?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson